Siblings of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Quality of life perceptions from Catalonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Siblings' interactions and shared experiences influence their perceptions of quality of life. Recently, research about siblings of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities has been significantly expanded but data from Southern European countries is still missing. This research was carried out in Catalonia (northeast Spain) a region in the Mediterranean area with its own shared culture, language and traditions that equally embraces an important diversity of ethnicities and cultures. The main aim was to collect siblings' perceptions on quality of life from siblings' own voices. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 14 siblings aged 5–11 years old and thematically analyzed using the following domains: joint activities; mutual understanding; private time; acceptance; forbearance; trust in well‐being; exchanging experiences; social support; and dealing with the outside world. Siblings reported a variety of experiences in relation to having a brother or a sister with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD), including unique characteristics of their quality of life perceptions. There were also some common factors amongst the siblings' experiences, such as the importance of being able to communicate properly with their brothers or sisters with I/DD. It emerged that having their own time with their parents was an important factor in their own development. This research echoes some siblings' beliefs that society needs to provide a conscious revision of values and ideas regarding disability. Implications for research and practice are described.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".